UN Climate Summit no longer about science!

[Crick]

The viewpoint that AGW is a valid description of the behavior of the Earth's climate is accepted by close to 100% of active climate scientists, by better than 99% of their peer reviewed publications and an extremely large majority of scientists in general. Coverage of your viewpoint is being dropped by mass media outlets like a putrescent hot potato, finally becoming aware that they'd allowed their "fair and impartial" guidelines to give the FlatEarthers a podium they'd never earned. The world may not be evinced to care enough about the threat of global warming, but the number of educated human beings that take your point of view has descended into complete statistical irrelevancy.

No one on this forum comes close to your ability to mangle facts on "consensus" and ignore evidence in front of your face. 99% of peer reviewed publications SAY WHAT? And where the fuck do you get the silly idea that EVERY climate paper is a vote in some random poll??

Sounds like lunatic fringe stuff Bullwinky...

On what do you base your belief that the common cold is caused by a rhinovirus?

On what do you base your belief that the sun operates by the fusion of hydrogen?

On what do you base your belief that the speed of light is the ultimate speed limit?

On what do you base your belief that homo sapiens evolved from more primitive hominids?

On what do you base your belief that Bose-Einstein condensates exist?

On what do you base your belief that the Higgs boson has been detected?

 

[elektra]

The UN is using Google to support their position. Google is Science for a AGW/Green energy activist.

 

[flacaltenn]

The viewpoint that AGW is a valid description of the behavior of the Earth's climate is accepted by close to 100% of active climate scientists, by better than 99% of their peer reviewed publications and an extremely large majority of scientists in general. Coverage of your viewpoint is being dropped by mass media outlets like a putrescent hot potato, finally becoming aware that they'd allowed their "fair and impartial" guidelines to give the FlatEarthers a podium they'd never earned. The world may not be evinced to care enough about the threat of global warming, but the number of educated human beings that take your point of view has descended into complete statistical irrelevancy.

No one on this forum comes close to your ability to mangle facts on "consensus" and ignore evidence in front of your face. 99% of peer reviewed publications SAY WHAT? And where the fuck do you get the silly idea that EVERY climate paper is a vote in some random poll??

Sounds like lunatic fringe stuff Bullwinky...

On what do you base your belief that the common cold is caused by a rhinovirus?

On what do you base your belief that the sun operates by the fusion of hydrogen?

On what do you base your belief that the speed of light is the ultimate speed limit?

On what do you base your belief that homo sapiens evolved from more primitive hominids?

On what do you base your belief that Bose-Einstein condensates exist?

On what do you base your belief that the Higgs boson has been detected?

Am I working for you now? Where can I send an invoice.
Probably have documented cause and effect on rhinovirus. Probably also have it's DNA sequenced. The others either are conceptual models and/or are accepted because they are the best plausible explanation. But before you go off uncocked, NONE of those are modeling predictions of future performance that have failed as spectacularly in the short term as AGW models.

And for most of the advanced physics, I wouldn't hold my breath for actual empirical data on Bose-Einstein condensates or Dark Matter.

I don't think predicting temperature falls into the same realm as those esoteric mental exercises that ya got there. In fact -- MOST of those theories are protected by very unknowable nature of their subjects..

 

[skookerasbil]

On what do you base your belief that the common cold is caused by a rhinovirus?

On what do you base your belief that the sun operates by the fusion of hydrogen?

On what do you base your belief that the speed of light is the ultimate speed limit?

On what do you base your belief that homo sapiens evolved from more primitive hominids?

On what do you base your belief that Bose-Einstein condensates exist?

On what do you base your belief that the Higgs boson has been detected?

Not sure s0n but evidently, the sun plays a significant role in global warming.........

Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global warming Fox News

 

[Crick]

No one on this forum comes close to your ability to mangle facts on "consensus" and ignore evidence in front of your face. 99% of peer reviewed publications SAY WHAT? And where the fuck do you get the silly idea that EVERY climate paper is a vote in some random poll??

Sounds like lunatic fringe stuff Bullwinky...

On what do you base your belief that the common cold is caused by a rhinovirus?

On what do you base your belief that the sun operates by the fusion of hydrogen?

On what do you base your belief that the speed of light is the ultimate speed limit?

On what do you base your belief that homo sapiens evolved from more primitive hominids?

On what do you base your belief that Bose-Einstein condensates exist?

On what do you base your belief that the Higgs boson has been detected?

Am I working for you now? Where can I send an invoice.
Probably have documented cause and effect on rhinovirus. Probably also have it's DNA sequenced. The others either are conceptual models and/or are accepted because they are the best plausible explanation. But before you go off uncocked, NONE of those are modeling predictions of future performance that have failed as spectacularly in the short term as AGW models.

And for most of the advanced physics, I wouldn't hold my breath for actual empirical data on Bose-Einstein condensates or Dark Matter.

I don't think predicting temperature falls into the same realm as those esoteric mental exercises that ya got there. In fact -- MOST of those theories are protected by very unknowable nature of their subjects..

The point was simply that you accept these theorems as the explanations for phenomena most likely to be correct due not to your personal experience but due to your knowledge that a consensus exists accepting their accuracy among the experts in the respective pertinent fields. These denier objections to science by consensus - calling it mob rule and the like - are complete bullshit since it is by consensus among the experts that ALL accepted scientific theory is identified.

 

[flacaltenn]

No one on this forum comes close to your ability to mangle facts on "consensus" and ignore evidence in front of your face. 99% of peer reviewed publications SAY WHAT? And where the fuck do you get the silly idea that EVERY climate paper is a vote in some random poll??

Sounds like lunatic fringe stuff Bullwinky...

On what do you base your belief that the common cold is caused by a rhinovirus?

On what do you base your belief that the sun operates by the fusion of hydrogen?

On what do you base your belief that the speed of light is the ultimate speed limit?

On what do you base your belief that homo sapiens evolved from more primitive hominids?

On what do you base your belief that Bose-Einstein condensates exist?

On what do you base your belief that the Higgs boson has been detected?

Am I working for you now? Where can I send an invoice.
Probably have documented cause and effect on rhinovirus. Probably also have it's DNA sequenced. The others either are conceptual models and/or are accepted because they are the best plausible explanation. But before you go off uncocked, NONE of those are modeling predictions of future performance that have failed as spectacularly in the short term as AGW models.

And for most of the advanced physics, I wouldn't hold my breath for actual empirical data on Bose-Einstein condensates or Dark Matter.

I don't think predicting temperature falls into the same realm as those esoteric mental exercises that ya got there. In fact -- MOST of those theories are protected by very unknowable nature of their subjects..

The point was simply that you accept these theorems as the explanations for phenomena most likely to be correct due not to your personal experience but due to your knowledge that a consensus exists accepting their accuracy among the experts in the respective pertinent fields. These denier objections to science by consensus - calling it mob rule and the like - are complete bullshit since it is by consensus among the experts that ALL accepted scientific theory is identified.

I do NOT accept due to some consensus of experts. I accept them because they have adequately been explained IN THE OPEN without all the hype and hysteria. And because there is some HUMILITY shown for what the scientists DON'T KNOW.. Get some of that humility.. It'll help sell whatever warmingchangedisruption you're selling this week.

 

[flacaltenn]

On what do you base your belief that the common cold is caused by a rhinovirus?

On what do you base your belief that the sun operates by the fusion of hydrogen?

On what do you base your belief that the speed of light is the ultimate speed limit?

On what do you base your belief that homo sapiens evolved from more primitive hominids?

On what do you base your belief that Bose-Einstein condensates exist?

On what do you base your belief that the Higgs boson has been detected?

Not sure s0n but evidently, the sun plays a significant role in global warming.........

Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global warming Fox News

The UN is acting like the kid with icing on his face denying he raided the Oreos.. CONSERVATIVE estimates is 50% of 2Oth century warming due to solar forcing. UN is now admitting they touched the cookie jar and saying 25%.. We'll get the truth eventually from the kids.. Right now -- their ARs outright LIE about solar forcing in one section and then have weasel words in a back chapter. Might have to send them to their room to think about it..

 

[Crick]

No one on this forum comes close to your ability to mangle facts on "consensus" and ignore evidence in front of your face. 99% of peer reviewed publications SAY WHAT? And where the fuck do you get the silly idea that EVERY climate paper is a vote in some random poll??

Sounds like lunatic fringe stuff Bullwinky...

On what do you base your belief that the common cold is caused by a rhinovirus?

On what do you base your belief that the sun operates by the fusion of hydrogen?

On what do you base your belief that the speed of light is the ultimate speed limit?

On what do you base your belief that homo sapiens evolved from more primitive hominids?

On what do you base your belief that Bose-Einstein condensates exist?

On what do you base your belief that the Higgs boson has been detected?

Am I working for you now? Where can I send an invoice.
Probably have documented cause and effect on rhinovirus. Probably also have it's DNA sequenced. The others either are conceptual models and/or are accepted because they are the best plausible explanation. But before you go off uncocked, NONE of those are modeling predictions of future performance that have failed as spectacularly in the short term as AGW models.

And for most of the advanced physics, I wouldn't hold my breath for actual empirical data on Bose-Einstein condensates or Dark Matter.

I don't think predicting temperature falls into the same realm as those esoteric mental exercises that ya got there. In fact -- MOST of those theories are protected by very unknowable nature of their subjects..

The point was simply that you accept these theorems as the explanations for phenomena most likely to be correct due not to your personal experience but due to your knowledge that a consensus exists accepting their accuracy among the experts in the respective pertinent fields. These denier objections to science by consensus - calling it mob rule and the like - are complete bullshit since it is by consensus among the experts that ALL accepted scientific theory is identified.

I do NOT accept due to some consensus of experts. I accept them because they have adequately been explained IN THE OPEN without all the hype and hysteria. And because there is some HUMILITY shown for what the scientists DON'T KNOW.. Get some of that humility.. It'll help sell whatever warmingchangedisruption you're selling this week.

Humility? Bullshit. The listed items are considered settled science because a strong majority of the experts in those fields - based on the exercise of the scientific method, accept them as valid.

 

[Crick]

PS, the five IPCC assessent reports are more open, far more than adequate and contain far less hype and hysteria than any of the public explanations given for the six topics I noted or any of a thousand others.

 

[skookerasbil]

The AGW folks on this thread still haven't been able to answer the question, "Why does the UN only allow its hand picked scientists into these climate summits?".

These climate summits are clearly rigged.......which may explain why the US didn't send a representative to the 2013 Climate Summit.

 

[Crick]

Something along the lines of "by invitation only"? Gosh, how unusual.

 

[saveliberty]

For some reason Global Warming Faithers have the only scientists that manipulate data to fit their hypothesis. They also routinely have failed models. Since this might lead to defunding of most scientific studies, they decided to band together.

 

[skookerasbil]

Something along the lines of "by invitation only"? Gosh, how unusual.

= rigged s0n.

Only the hopelessly duped cant see it.

 

[Crick]

Only the paranoid, the ignorant and the bigoted see what you see.

 

[skookerasbil]

Only the paranoid, the ignorant and the bigoted see what you see.

The NFL is now investigating the Ray Rice incident. Only people like those in the AGW religion will think it can be a legit investigation!!! The connect the dots abilities are simply absent.

 

[Crick]

The world is getting warmer. The primary cause is the greenhouse effect acting on human GHG emissions and deforestation. Ray Rice is not involved.

 

[skookerasbil]

The world is getting warmer. .

Not what the scientific data is telling us s0n ( well documented in this forum about 1/2 a billion times)........zero warming for the past 17+ years.......and you know it too s0n!!


But phonies will be phonies!!

 

[Crick]

The world is getting warmer. .

Not what the scientific data is telling us s0n ( well documented in this forum about 1/2 a billion times)........zero warming for the past 17+ years.......and you know it too s0n!!

But phonies will be phonies!!

The oceans contain over 90% of the world's heat.

 

[jc456]

The world is getting warmer. .

Not what the scientific data is telling us s0n ( well documented in this forum about 1/2 a billion times)........zero warming for the past 17+ years.......and you know it too s0n!!

But phonies will be phonies!!

The oceans contain over 90% of the world's heat.

I hope you posted near a toilet! Because you regurgitated hard again.

 

[Crick]

Those were data showing that the world continues to get warmer. I believe those data superior (in quality, quantity, applicability and pertinence) to any data posted here in attempts to argue the world is getting cooler.